9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in these cases on 14th Jan., 1981, 24th Jan., 1981 and 13th Feb., 1981 respectively. The ITO, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271 (1) (a) of the IT Act. The assessee's explanation before the ITO was that as a result of the final assessment, the assessee had been granted certain refunds so that it followed that no tax was leviable. Therefore, there was no delay in the filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his was not a sufficient ground for the delay in the filing of the returns. Calculating the penalties as if the assessee were an unregistered firm, he levied the same at RS. 2,045, Rs. 869 and RS. 662 respectively. All these penalties have been knocked of by the AAC in appeals. The Revenue has come up in second appeal before us. 2. We have heard the representatives of the parties at length in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT vs. Maskara Tea Estate (1981) 21 CTR (Guj) 47 : (1981) 130 ITR 955 (Guj). It was also contended that this decision had been followed by the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 374 and 375/83 decided on 26th June, 1984. For the Department, reliance was placed upon CIT vs. R. Ochhavlal & Co. (1976) 105 ITR 518 (Guj) and CIT vs. Priya Gopal Bishoyee (1981) 20 CTR (Cal) 242 : (1981) 127 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y because the interest could not be levied merely because the interest was to be calculated on the assessee as if it were an unregistered firm and the tax payable by the URF would be higher. Since the Jaipur Bench has taken a particular view on the matter, it is not desirable for us to depart form the view eve if the major High Court in the country have taken a contrary view especially when the Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Ruhela urged that he wanted to raise a ground of appeal again this finding and sought time for filing an additional ground. We have not allowed the adjournment because we are not inclined to disturb the finding of the AAC on the main issue. But his casual finding on the collateral issue is certainly not convincing and if our decision on the legal issue were different, we would have alteast di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
